ClioSport.net
Register a free account today to become a member!
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Read more here.
Clio Sport 172 2L 16V (2002) -Vs- Saxo VTS 1.6 16V
I remember seeing a race between VBH and Tiff Needel, it featured a Saxo VTS and Ph-Quick.
The VTS was all over the back of the Clio in the corners but was soon left on the straights.
RS RIP
i just traded mine in for a Clio 172 one month ago 
and i must say that it's nearly impossible to get the Saxo to break out when speedy curving while the Clio is a LOT trickier ! The rear end generally stays put, with the clio you'll be punished when releasing your right foot
But the better driver will definatly beat the Saxo because there is just alot more power , ilikealot
and i must say that it's nearly impossible to get the Saxo to break out when speedy curving while the Clio is a LOT trickier ! The rear end generally stays put, with the clio you'll be punished when releasing your right foot But the better driver will definatly beat the Saxo because there is just alot more power , ilikealot
Well i owned a 106 gti which is near on the same as a VTS, now got a 172 phase-quick. Took them out for a blast together, my lady in the 106 and me in the 172. She is a bloody good fast driver.
There was nothing between them over all really, as said on the straights the 172 pulls on the gti, but as soon as you see a bend the gti will real the 172 right back in.
I would say straight line speed the 172 is faster but on bends the gti is faster but the breaks on the 172 are so much better than the gti.
Overall in a b road race there is nothing between them really.
Both the vts and gti are so so underestimated. I find them so much more fun to drive and would even say my old gti was a better drivers car than the 172
There was nothing between them over all really, as said on the straights the 172 pulls on the gti, but as soon as you see a bend the gti will real the 172 right back in.
I would say straight line speed the 172 is faster but on bends the gti is faster but the breaks on the 172 are so much better than the gti.
Overall in a b road race there is nothing between them really.
Both the vts and gti are so so underestimated. I find them so much more fun to drive and would even say my old gti was a better drivers car than the 172
Glacier White 197 Cup
vtr is 8 v and vts is the 16v
Martin_172
ClioSport Club Member
VTR is a 1.6 8v with 90bhp for a ph1 and 100bhp for a ph2 or arround that
VTS is a 1.6 16v with 120bhp but some had 130bhp as said
VTS is a 1.6 16v with 120bhp but some had 130bhp as said
I'm not 100% what the figures for these cars are, i would guess at 0-60 and bhp are;
172 = 7.0-7.2 172bhp
VTS = 7.2-7.6 120bhp
What do these figures actually mean in real life races though, as these figures are gained from straight line driving aint they. How do they transfer into real life performance?
MarkCup
ClioSport Club Member
Around the Haynes sprint track there was almost nothing between the 172/182's and Valvers/Williams (OK...the Williams were a little bit quicker ). The really tight bit's were hard work in the 172/182's...all that extra weight makes a huge difference.
Around Brands, the Williams/Valvers can just stay in touch.
Around Bedford they'd really struggle.
I'd say against a VTS it would be the similar?
). The really tight bit's were hard work in the 172/182's...all that extra weight makes a huge difference.Around Brands, the Williams/Valvers can just stay in touch.
Around Bedford they'd really struggle.
I'd say against a VTS it would be the similar?
^^ what he said.
RB 182 Cup
if thats so what about a 2.0 mondeo vs an EK9 then?